Core strategy or poor strategy? part 3

Across the borough

Chineham aside (I didn't know the Tories had the power to de-village an area, but whenever they talk about villages, they don't include Chineham) The least controversial bit was the villages. They've all ended up with a target to meet the needs of their children (minus Tadley for health and safety reasons). 

The rest of the out of town development (including reserve sites) is Chineham/Lychpit 1880 homes, Basing 100, Golf Course and Kennel farm near Jct 7 M3 1400 homes and also 450 north of Popley (on top of the existing development there).

The main controversy was the exclusion of Manydown. An area of land purchased by the Council to build houses on, which the Tories have said is, and/or made, unavailable, based on the work needed to address infrastructure issues.

However in the west the Tories have been saying to voters they'll do all they can to prevent building on Manydown. So either they've stopped something that could have happened, in which case it can be built on and the decision was a purely political one.

Or they've been dishonest to those in Buckskin, Oakley and Winklebury in suggesting they're protecting Manydown from something that couldn't happen anyway. Somewhere in there we've been conned.

If the Tories really wanted to save the Loddon Valley, then they've had since 2006 to address any infrastructure problems on Manydown. Either this work has been done (the County Council Tories were spending money on such things up until 2009) and they don't want anyone to know

Or they haven't done this work; in which case what the hell were County Tories wasting tax payers money on? And if the Tories have known since 2006 that Manydown was out, they fully intended to build on the Loddon Valley. Why have they been saying they're backing the campaigns to prevent it over the last 6 years in that case? Somewhere in there we've been conned again.

We've ended up with close to 2000 to the east, 450 to the north, 1400 to the South and erm....none to the west, where a piece of land nearly half the size of Basingstoke has been purchased just for housing! 

Apart from putting more pressure on the over used junction 6 of the M3 (it is hard to see how thgis can be upgraded), they've also put insufficient houses to the South to justify a new secondary school, and there isn't one already. They've put insufficent houses in the Loddon Valley to justify a new secondary school, where there isn't one already. Nothing in the west where there is enough space to build a primary and secondary school - but perhaps winning your council seat is a bit more important than educating our children if your a Tory.

Verdict - Very poor strategy

Spin watch

Watch out for Tories saying Lib Dems would have built everything in one place, their consultation said residents wanted homes distributed around the borough rather than in one place whilst and that's why so many are in the Loddon Valley. It is nonsense. 

We've always supported villages growing sufficiently to sustain themselves (housing those who grew up locally') however it is not fair to those who grew up in Basingstoke to have to be re-housed in a distant village. So Basingstoke would have to expand to house its own children too - I'm not trying to hide the fact that, in our view, Manydown was the most sustainable location where development could be well planned and benefit existing residents (and make a lot of money to support Council to support infrastructure investment), but no one ever suggested Manydown would be the only place homes would be built.

Also watch out for Kemphott Conservatives saying as little as possible. They've said they will oppose development of land near Down Grange.  To date they have done nothing to get it removed from the strategy. When the Council votes on the strategy they'll have the power to vote with the opposition and block it, more Tory squirming, whipping' and back tracking coming to a ward near you this summerI'm guessing.

And finally

Is the devil in the detail?

The policies within the core strategy will inform decisions over planning applications for the next 15 years. Apart from the site specific policies, which were controversial for a different reason, there seemed little debate over the detail, simply the wording. The 3 meetings devoted to this subject seemed to go on forever. Unless you have a legal or planning background and want to check the wording, I would look at the sites. In this case the devil's in the site selection.

Verdict - bore strategy?

You can make your contributions to the core strategy HERE